i urge all senators to join with us and close this dangerous loophole in the law that mexican drug ca cartels and gangs and or criminals throughout our country have exploited for too long. and i want to recognize the dedication and leadership of senator collins ofaine to nfront the issue of gun violence. she's not a member of the judiciary committee but she's been committed to finding commonsense solutions to the problems of gun violence. she's been dedicated in working with me to address the concerns of other senators. she and i share a deep respect for the second amendment but we also agree that our laws can be improved to give law enforcement officials the tools they need and she's been a steadfast partner. our bill protects second amendment rights of lawful gun owners. at the same time, though, it cracks down on criminalsnd al cracks down on the people who assist crimils. it doesn't create a national

firearms registry. it doesn't place additional burdens on law-abiding gun owners or purchasers. but it does send a very clear message that those who would buy a gun on behalf of a criminal or a member of a drug cartel or a domestic abuser would be held accotabl. that's why law enforcement say pass this bill, give those of us in law enforcement on the frontlines, give us the tools we need. now, some have expressed frustration about the level of prosecution under existing gun laws. some have suggested instead of making sensible changes t our public safety laws to prevent gun violence, federal law enforcement officials should focus exclusively on existing laws. now, i share some of that frustration, but it's not a valid excuse to do nothing. improvements in the enforcement of existing laws, efforts to

give law enforcement officials better tools to do their jobs, these are not mutually exclusi exclusive. these are efforts that complement each other. a recent article in "the washington times" documented the gun prosecutions were in decline beginng in the bush administration and suggests having a setting confirmed director of the bureau of alcoho tobacco, firearms and explosives would significantly help law enforcement. and i ask that a copy of the article be included in the record at the conclusion of my statement. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: as i sd in january, america is looking to us for solutions for action, not sloganeering, demagoguery, partisanship. that's why it's particularly disappointing to hear som senators are pledging to prevent senate consideration of these proposals by filibustering.

it's especially disappointing some who claim to support regular order, a transparent legislative process, according to that process know deference. you know, mr. president, there are only a hundred of us who have the privilege to serve at any given time in this wonderful bodypusuant to clause 8 of rule the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record vote on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 254. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 13, h.r. 2354, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to facilitate the development of hydroelectric pow thorne diamond fork system of

the central utah project. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, an the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wittman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the swrelt is recognized. -- the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: h.r. 254 facilitates the development of clean and renewable hydroelectric power and existing facilities in the diamond fork system in utah. that's enough electricity to power over 50,000 homes. this bill removes an administrative impediment to make this happen. as part of the current rule the developer must first pay $106 million, even before investing in the capital costs to install

hydropower generators. razz tom mcclintock said, this is akin to a family renting out a room but first requiring the renter to pay off the mortgage. the family is then shocked that nobody wants to rent from them and the family is not further along in paying off its elf age and has denied its rentle income. they said, the federal government is unlikely under current law to develop the hydropower resources for the diamondback project for the next 10 years, unquote. therefore this bill removes the requirement for paying for the sum cost and encourages nonfederal entities to pursue hydropower development at diamond fork. as a result, this legislation would generate $4 million in revenue over a 10-year period. the house has passed this legislation twice in as many

congresses, and i urge my colleagues to support it again. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. holt: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, h.r. 254, introduced by my friend, mr. chaffetz of utah, would allow for the production of hydropower at existing facilities by deferring the debt associated with hydropower development on the diamond fork system, as you have heard. this would facilitate the development of 50 megawatts of clean hydroelectric power while generating revenue for the government for the use of the water facilities. and this is what we should want to see. and so i ask my colleagues to support its passage, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized.

mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i want to thank the bipartisan support that we've had in the passage of its legislation and urge its support. h.r. 254 is a win for federal taxpayers, the environment and energy users. this bill allows for the development of 50 megawatts of clean, renewable hydropower at the diamond fork system in utah and will generate $600,000 per year for the federal government. in utah we're one of the fastest growing areas in the nation, and we need this power. under current law, hydropower will not be developed under the diamond fork system due to the requirement that the energy velopers pay $106 million to repay. according to the congressional budget office, doing an assessment on h.r. 254, said, quote, under the reasons the c.b.o. expects the site will not be developed under the next

10 -- in the next 10 years is that project sponsors pay the treshy for a portion of the federal government's previous investments in their water project, end quote. h.r. 254 would waive the replacement requirement, making the project economically feasible. in addition, the developer would pay for the federal government a $600,000 per year fee unrelated to the cost once the project is completed. massive amounts of energy are generated in the diamond fork unit. its water flows downhill from strawberry reservoir to the utah and salt lake valleys. energy dissipators are scattered throughout the pipeline to disperse the energy. under h.r. 254, the operators would be able to replace those with turbines allowing the currently wasted energy to be converted into electricity. with or without this bill, the federal government will not recover the $106 million under any realistic scenario. developers would not create 50 megawatts of renewable

hydropower unless the repayment requirement is waived. additionally, the federal government will receive $600,000 per year once the project is completed if the repayment requirement is waived. this has had a number of hearings within the natural resources committee. we appreciate the bipartisan support and spirit of this moving forward. i'd urge the passage by my colleagues. we need the energy. this is the best clean way we can do it, and with that i yield back. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: does the gentleman from virginia have further speakers? mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. mr. holt: with that i will repeat my advice to my colleagues that we support this legislation and i will yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i concur with the gentleman from new jersey is that -- in

that this bill should pass and i appreciate the bipartisan and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 254. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, bams, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, on this i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays? mr. holt: the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 , further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1033.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar to er 17, h.r. 1033, a bill authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 under the american attlefield protection program. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wittman: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wittman: the american battlefield protection act addressed the preservation and protection of civil war battlefields through conservation easements or through the purchase of land from willing sellers with

federal grants. h.r. 1033 renews this effort which will soon expire and adds revolutionary war and war of 1812 battlefields for those eligible for protection. it is important to note that the bill we are considering mirrors the version from the last congress that passed the house and included improvements made by the natural resources committee. specifically, the program's sunset was moved up from 10 to five years and we retained the existing authorization of appropriations to provide a more realistic funding level in these times of deficit spending. additionally, the committee added language to prohibit these funds from being used for lobbying activities or for lobbying.ributed to we want to ensure that these funds go specifically for battlefield protection and not

outside advocacy. i would also like to point out that this legislation does not fund advocacy or educational seminars and programs. these grants are strictly available to state and local governments for battlefield protection. there's a separate and distinct federal authorization for educational programs and partnership that is not part of this bill. mr. speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. holt: and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. holt: i rise in support of this battlefield that mr. wittman and i bring -- have brought to the committee and now to the floor, the american battlefields protection program amendments act.

from lexington, where the shot from -- from where the shot still reverberates, to gettysburg, the site of the battle described so brilliantly and concisely by lincoln, to the stories of the american revolution and the civil war, it is at the battlefields that we bring to life the ideals of liberty and democracy fostered by our nation's founders. history is best experienced by those who can touch it, feel it, live it, and the battlefields of the american revolution, the war of 1812, the civil war provide an unique opportunity for americans to experience where and how the epic struggle for our nation's independence and identity took place. unfortunately, urbanization, suburban sprawl, unplanned commercial and residential development are constantly encroaching on the many significant battlefields that are still part of the

revolutionary war, the war of 1812 and the civil war. this encroachment poses a severe and growing risk to the preservation of these historic sites. congress recognizes the danger to this shared history and in the late 1990's created the american battlefield protection program, a competitive grant program that matches federal dollars with private money to preserve civil war sites. since congress first appropriated funding for this program, it has helped to save more than 17,000 acres of hallowed ground in 14 states. again, encouraging private funds for acquiring land from willing sellers. . he bill before us today would the bill before us will authorize this program -- re-authorize this program and extend the protection and

preservation to battlefields from the revolutionary war and the war of 112. h.r. 1033 would allow officials of the american battlefield protection program to collaborate with state and local governments and nonprofit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites and provide up to 50% of the cost of purchasing the battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development. again, from willing sellers, encouraging the use of private funds. previously this legislation has been approved three times by this house with overwhelming bipartisan support. mostly unanimous. in a markup in the house resources committee last month, the american battlefield protection amendments act again passed unanimously. as the civil war trust said in their letter supporting this

legislation, quote, the battlefield of the american revolutionnary war, the war of 1812 and the civil war prorkvide a unique opportunity for americans to experience the epic battles that helped define our nation. preserving these american historic treasures is essential to remember the sacrifices our ancestors made to secure our freedom and independence and preserve our republic, end quote. the on fwoing bicentennial commemoration of the war of 1812 and the ongoing sesquicentennial celebration of the civil war means this is an opportune time to recommit ourselves to the nation's hallowed ground. historical sites once lost are gone, forever. we should act now to preserve these valuable sites. the national park service has done an inventory of sites around the country and they

point to many that need this protection now. i thank my colleague from virginia for his enthusiastic support, i point out that there is strong bipartisan support for this legislation as co-sponsored and other supporters and i urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bill. i preserve -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: as an original co-sponsor of h.r. 1033, i'd like to express my appreciation to mr. holt for his continued leadership to preserve and protect important battlefields throughout the united states, including those in his home state of new jersey, better known as the crossroads of the american revolution. as a slirgian this legislation is also especially notable as it will continue to preserve important hallowed ground from our nation's independence and the civil war. the civil war battlefield preservation program has been particularly beneficial to the

commonwealth of virginia. as a result, hard-fought acres of battleground have been preserved in pivotal sites such appomattox, fred rix -- fredericksburg, manassas, petersburg and richmond. preserving battlefields does more than just honor those who fowlingt in those battles. it protects important places from our nation's -- excuse me, from development. i want to make sure we continue those efforts in assuring that we make the effort to keep these battlefields in their proper place in this nation's history. i also would like to emphasize that this program doesn't increase the amount of federal land. i know there's been criticism to say this is an effort to increase federal land within the program. while it does increase and expand those battlefield areas eligible under the program, it

doesn't increase the amount of federal left hand in this particular project. so i want to make sure that people understand that, this is really for protection of battlefields outside of national park boundaries, giving concerns within those areas the ability to help preserve those lands. there's no additional management burden on the federal government. so these lands are not going to become part of a system where we have to incur more costs to maintain the lands. it's the ability to make sure we preserve those lands and especially today with encroachment from development in those areas, these critical historical sites must be preserved and this gives the flexibility and tools for those folks in those areas that want to preserve those lands the ability to do that. so mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i thank my good friend from virginia and would reiterate what he has

said. in fact the original legislation which we are re-authorizing and extending through this bill grew out of virginia. it was because of the critical battlefields in virginia that were at risk of being lost that this battlefield protection legislation was developed. but it will be beneficial across many states, you look where the war or 1812 was fought in the keep south and around the great lakes and the revolutionary war fought up and downen -- up and down the 13 colonies, this is something that is of great national importance and because the authorization is about to expire, it is needed and because so many of these battlefields are at great risk of being overrun by sprawl and development, it is at the

greatest need now. i urge my colleagues to support it. again, i thank my friend from verge. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from verge is recognized. mr. wittman: as mr. holt said, preserving battlefields is extraordinarily important. it does more than honor those who fought in the past. it's important to protoket these places that are so important in our nation's history. preserving these battlefields cents economically to local businesses to and communities in these areas across the country. according to a recent study in just five states, including missouri, pennsylvania, south carolina, tennessee, and virginia, 15. million visitors went to these civil war sites and spent nearly $442 million in those local communities and supported 5,150 jobs. we talk all the time about jobs and the economy, this is something we can do to improve and enhance jobs and the economy

in these local communities. wore blessed in virginia, as mr. holt said, with a rich history and according to the virginia tourism corp. reags, civil war site visitors stay longer and spend more than twice as much as the average visitor to the commonwealth. preserving battlefields is good for local communities and businesses and good for jobs and the economy. this bill continues -- mr. holt: i would like to add to his economic numbers, the fiscal fact that this does not appropriate any funds, we're just re-authorizing existing legislation and extending it. i thank the gentleman. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. the bill again continues a modest investment of federal resources to protect these hallowed grounds where our in dependence was won and our republic secured. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1033 and i want to

reiterate what mr. holt said, this legislation does not increase spending. proponents of the program sought to double the annual spending authorize eags and add revolutionary war and war of 1812 sites to those eligible for grants but the committee made sure that there was no increase in spending and insisted that the proposal be added to keep these authorizations flat at these current levels when adding additional war sites. we wanted to make sure we had the opportunity for a site to be included but understanding where we are with the nation's deficit, we wanted to make sure we could preserb these sites without adding to the deficit. i think it's a very responsible way to to that, to make sure that communities have that ability to do the things they need to do and also making sure we keep in mind the times that we face here at the federal level. i believe it's an extraordinarily good bill and i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1033 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1033? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the les are suspended -- mr. wittman: mr. speaker, on that i demand the yeas and nays on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking the vote by the yeas and nays will rise and emain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this otion will be postponed. pursuant to clause 2a of rule 1rk4e chair declares the house in recess until approximateryly 6:30 p.m. today.

senator of west virginia and the republican pat too mi of pennsylvania working behind the scenes. what are they discussing? know o -- what to we they're discussing? >> they have been trying to find a compromise on background

checks, he's a member of the n.r.a., when he ran for the senate had an add of -- an ad of him shooting a gun at the cap and trade bill, he's a big gun proponent. he's been trying to broker a -- , him and senator too mi snoort toomey are trying to reach a teal that will bring both sides onboard and move a bill with such bipartisan agreement that the republican house will be willing to take it up. >> sounds like such an uphill fight when so many senators said they wouldn't support gun legislation, sounds like they wouldn't support the bell coming to the floor. what are they asking for? >> it's been an uphill fight from day one, it's been clear from the beginning that there would be a group of republicans in the senate, a larger fwroup in the house, that would be trying to undermine these efforts by democrats to pass

gun control legislation and those 13 senators have said they don't even want to see debate they don't want to see amendments, they don't went any votes taken on the bill, they want to stop it dead in its tracks and that's what they're working to do but senator reed try -- reid trying to get around that process, trying to make sure some votes are held he said today if he's unable to get those 60 votes on cloture, he's going to have votes and vote on each measure as an individual bill one by one. >> let's go become to the cloture vote, or look ahead to the cloture vote. what if he does get the 60 required? how long do you expect a bill debate to last? >> the bill debate could last a long time, particularly if they get into an unlimited amendment process. we're going to see propoets and opponents on both sides trying to have their amendment passed. senator feinstein is going to try to attach an assault weapon ban to the proposal, where

those leek senator lee and senator cruz who are opposed to it will try to strip the bell down, weaken it and make it much less effective. >> if a bill comes out of the senate will it see the light of day in the house? >> that's a big question. speaker boehner said he was going to wait and see what the senate did before saying one way or another. some gun control opponents have been unhappy that speaker boehner hasn't more strongly said he wouldn't take something up but there's a lot of negotiating going on in washington right now, and this could be one more element of things that are being discussed, the president pushing as hard as he has, trying to get house republicans o at least give it a vote. >> you can read her report at politico.com. thanks for that update. >> the house coming back at 6:30 or so in an hour with votes and general speeches and also a measure that would --

this evening the house will consider a resolution that says when the house adjourns tonight they will do so in memory of former brit herb prime minister margaret thatcher. live coverage when they return here on c-span. the issue of gun control came up at today's white house briefing with jay carney and a number of questions about north korean threats. this is about an hour. >> welcome, everybody. president obama is announcing his intent to nominate three members of the national labor and to the rd designated chairman and harry johnson iii. the members of the nlrb, these nominations all, including the

two nominated prior are acted on by the senate would bring the nlrb up to full operating level ensuring that it continues to function and fill s responsibles to look after things this would be a five- person board, two republican nominees and we would have a balanced bipartisan board weand urge the senate to move on those nominations efficiently. secondly i'd also like to say that this afternoon, the senate will vote to confirm judge patty schwartz to the third circuit. judge schwartz was reported by the senate judiciary committee on march , 2012, making her wait 397 days for what should be a bipartisan confirmation vote. after her expected confirmation there will still be 14 other judicial nominees awaiting floor votes.

of these 14, 13 were approved by the judiciary committee unanimously. and five nominees would fill judicial emergencies. they have been waiting on the senate floor for an average of 67 days for a vote. that's nearly twice as long as president bush's judicial nominees. we urge the senate to move on these nominees without further delay. you lee? >> thank you. they are urging all foreigners to evacuate south korea, saying the two countries are on the verge of a nuclear war. does the united states take this threat seriously or do they think this is all blust her >> north korea's statement urging visitors to leave seoul is rhetoric that will further isolate north korea from the international community and we continue to urge the north korean leadership to heed president obama's call to choose the path of peace and come into compliance with its

international only fwations. we have seen this kind of bellicose rhetoric, these kinds of provocative statements, consistently in recent days and wokes but also as part of a pattern of behavior we have seen over the years from north korean leadership. the end result of this kind of behavior has only been to further isolate north korea from the rest of the world and to do harm to the north korean people. the north korean leadership uld be wiser to focus on developing its economy and assisting the north korean people who suffer under this keen of leadership that shoozes -- that chooses development of missile programs and nuclear weapons rather than the feeding of its own people. >> related to this statement or just part of the situation there, are there zugses happening within the administration about revising

any travel warnings for americans in south korea? >> well travel wanchings are issued by the state department so that's your best source for information on that. in general, again, we are taking prudent measures in response to the stepped up rhetoric and actions by the north koreans. those have been reported on. some of the flights that we flew, the repositioning of missile defense at -- assets and the like, those actions -- to to be taken and ensure defense of the homeland. >> there will be a protest outside the white house with several liberal groups and lawmakers delivering a petition, upset about the positions the president has taken in his upcoming budget and other issues. is there any concern the president may be alienating some of his liberal allies, particularly those who are such -- who were such a crucial part of his re-election?

>> the president's budget represents a good faith attempt to reach a deal with congress that would achieve this president's number one objective, which is economic growth and job creation. that has to be the first priority. everyone in washington is focused on budget issues. what his budget will prove when you see it tomorrow is that you can invest in our economy, protect our seniors, make sure that we're making crucial investments in areas like infrastructure education and education that help our economy grow in the future, and responsibly reduce our deficit. we need to grow the economy and create jobs. that's the number one objective. we have come a long way since the depths of the great recession but we have a long way to go. we've created 6.5 million private sector jobs in the

united states of america they can american people have, since we emerged from the recession is that a home recording? rock on. good garage band sound. i kind of like it. anyway as i was saying, since the depths of the recession, we have emerged to create 6.5 million mivet sector jobs, we have seen quarter after quarter of positive economic growth but we are a long way from where we need to be. we need to move forward through a budget process that ensures that we protect the middle class, provide ladders of opportunity to those who aspire to the middle class that we invest in education and infrastructure and innovation and that we as part of a broad budget approach continue to reduce our deficit. i know you know, joy, because you've been here, the president signed into law $2.5 trillion in deficit reconduction thus far an done it in a way to

allow our economy to continue to grow despite the disruptions we've faced because of recalls trance on capitol hill by republicans, notably in the summer. if the president's bill were to become law, it would allow not just for economic growth and job creation but in concert with that, an additional $1.8 billion in deficit reduction, bringing this the total to $4.3 trillion that would, for the wonks out there, create a deficit to g.d.p. ratio under 3% which is what economists say we need to stabilize our debt. all of this is part of a broad, holistic approach to our budget challenges. >> you are not concerned about -- >> i think democrats and allies understand that this budget the president will put forward tomorrow is not his ideal budget, it is a document that recognizes that to achieve a bipartisan solution to our

budget challenges, we need to make tough choices. it demonstrates in stark con it's a -- contrast to the house republican budget that you can invest in our economy and protect our middle class and protect our seniors and reduce the deficit. you don't have to go the route of chairman ryan, which is to eviscerate, devastate, programs that help the middle class, block grant and disarrayed or slice down medicaid so families who rely on medicaid, including families with chern who are disabled, you don't have to voucherize medicare and shift somehow thousands of dollars of cost annually onto vulnerable seniors to reduce the deficit and you don't need $5. trillion in tax cuts to the wealthiest of americans and then pay for it by all these cuts to programs that help the middle class. there is a better way there is a balanced way and that's the

way the president will put forward tomorrow. >> senator bachus is saying he wants to produce a tax reform plan by august. is that something that is included in the president's vision for a grand bargain on the deficit? does it include comprehensive tax reform and is he interested in making reforms to the individual tax code as well as the corporate tax code? >> well the outlines for the president' budget have gotten out but i will urge you to wait until tomorrow when we'll have just a tai-long budget-palooza, filled with details for you to examine. but the fact is, the president's balanced approach to deficit reduction does include revenues through tax reform, closing loopholes and capping of deductions. very much in the manner that speaker boehner proposed late last year.

the difference being that at least now, anyway, the president believes we need to take the savings from that, the revenue generated from tax reform, and apply it to deficit reduction rather than turning it into tax cuts for the wealthy and well connected system of that is tax reform and that will be part of our budget. but for the details of that, i urge you to wait until tomorrow. >> what can you tell us about the din planned for tomorrow night? >> well, as was the case the first time the president had dinner with a dozen republican senators, this will be a private dinner where the president looks forward to discussing a range of subjects, including, of course, budget and fiscal matters but also immigration reform and the effort to pass commonsense legislation to reduce gun violence. and other issues, i'm sure. he looks forward to this, as i think you know senator isakson took on the task of compiling the invitation list, i would

refer you to his office or the individual senators' offices to ask about who is attending. we won't put that outing it's up to them to say whether or ot they're attending or to senator isakson to decide whether or not to put out his list this will be hopefully in the president's view the constructive conversation he had the first time with a different group of senators he believes there's a commonsense caucus in washington that embraces the idea that compromise will require -- compromise requires moving off of your absolutist positions, accepting you don't get everything you want, that ideological purity is not achieveable legislatively when you have a divided government as we do in washington. and that's what the president's budget embodies and he knows because he's had conversations with republican senators who have expressed this that there

the least an element of republican conference in the senate that believes that bipartisan compromise is possible on a reaning of issues, including budget issues. so he's hoping to continue that conversation and hopes it will be productive. >> will it be here? >> i think it has been reported it will be at the white house and that's correct, it will be here. >> is he going to make a direct appeal at that din tomorrow for some republican senators there to allow the bait on gun legislation? >> well, i can't predict, there's no script, but enge as you heard last night when the president was in hartford, connecticut, he feels very passionately about the obligation of each individual senator to allow a vote on each

of the components of these gun violence measures. it would be a shame, as he said, that those who applauded the idea that every one of these issues should have a vote in honor of gabie giffords or the children of newtown or the victims of aurora, those senators who applauded in january at the state of the union address hopefully will, in keeping with their applause then, not take any action to try to hide behind procedural measures to avoid a vote. if they are opposed to background checks, they should stand up and say so and vote no. the american people demand at least that. they elected members of the senate to vote. that is their principal job, that's with they get paid for.

they don't paid to block votes theark get paid to vote and make decisions about what they believe is right or wrong for the country and if they think background checks, for example, that 90 pk of the american people support, are wrong, if they're with the 10%, they ought to stand by their convictions but explain why. >> what's the difference between saying that in a speech and sitting over a din table. >> i don't think the president will be shy about expressing his views on this matter. i'm telling you there's not a script, so i can't guarantee the direction of the conversation. but i can assure you that the need to make progress on legislation that is very commonsense, that is supported in each of its components by a majority of the american people, will be a top exof conversation and will be something the president wants to discuss. >> on this issue of this florida couple who allegedly abducted their children from their grandparents who had custody of the kids and are now

apparently in cuba, cnn has now, it appears, seen and spoken to the father of the children. >> i'm afraid, i'll have to take a question. i'm not acare of the -- aware of the story. i didn't have cnn. >> you're aware of the story? >> a little bit. i don't have anything to say. >> will the u.s. be demanding cuba turn over the children? >>ville to take a question. >> on the gun legislation question, is the president reaching out at all to senator mansion and senator toomey, does he hold out hope that some kind of language on the actual background checks could be reached? and in his talks with he newtown parents, would background checks have made any difference in newtown? >> i'll start with the first part, the president and his team here at the white house is actively engaged, or the president and his team, are

actively epfweaged in the effort to work with those members of the senate trying to forge bipartisan compromise on the various components of the gun legislation that's up there. i don't have specific conversations to read out but we are obviously continues to work with members of the senate, we remain hopeful that bipartisan compromise can be achieved, we remain insistent that legislation be voted on and not blocked through filibuster or other procedural measures, manners, but we are engaged in this process. from the top down. what the president has said about and said again last night about the comprehensive set of proposals he put forward in january is that even if they all passed, we would not eliminate all violent acts

using firearms. there would still be gun violence in america. there's no question. t it is incumbent upon those lawmakers who are sent here by their constituents and incumbent on the president and the vice president who were elected by the entire country, to do whatever they can that is sensible and common sense that will reduce gun violence. save the lifes of children like the children in newtown. it won't eliminate the problem but the problem needs to be addressed, we need to reduce the number of horrific events and the number of the often unreported or lit real ported events that take the lives of so many americans every day of he week. >> something that was discussed last week enge you might want to clarify. when the president's budget comes out, it will remace the

sequester and the republicans cob tend the net deficit reduction will be $600 billion and there were those who concluded from the briefing last week that you said as much. >> no. >> would you walk us through the math as the white house sees it on net deficit reduction, how the sequester is replaced and what the budget will say about 0-year deficit reduction numbers. >> the budget will say about 10-year deficit reduction nurs that if the president's budget is enacted it will reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion. added to the $2.5 trillion signed into law by the president that brings us, even for those who didn't go far in math, to $4.3 trillion. the president's budget will replace the sequester, which was designed to be bad policy for everyone with not just $1.2 trillion in deficit reconduction but $1. trillion in deficit reduction. in other words it will go

further than the sequester. if the proposition is that the sequester is policy that we want to embrace, i encourage members of congress to stand up and say so, that they believe in the defense cuts, that they believe in the fact that there are no ebb titlement savings, that they believe in the across-the-board indiscriminate nature of the sequester which was designed by congress to force congress to do its job. it was an admission by congress or at least posited by those who designed it to do the se quest for the an arbitrary job because it's our job, members of congress, to do it in a thoughtful way, to do it in the best possible way in terms of policy. so the whole proposition has been, as you know, major, since you covered it since the sum over 2011, to achieve further deficit reduction, not through the sequester but through better policy. >> when we look at the nulls torl, we'll see $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction. >> yes. >> $600 billion in new revenue

and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. and interest that -- >> roughly that's the breakdown. it's more than two to one as is the case twhethooth -- as the president's overall keff sit reduction. for every dollar in revenue, more than $2 comes in spending cut. i urge you to examine the details when the budget is put out. there will be revenue achieved through tax reforl, closing loopholes and capping of deductions, you know that go to the well off and well connected and that will produce revenue, enge as we talked about, the offer the president made to speaker bayner is incorporated within the budget that offer included roughly $580 billion in revenue tpwhreened from tax reform, capping of deductions and closing of loopholes. that will be included in the budget. the rest will come from savings elsewhere in the budget including through entitlement reforms we proposed including those in the boehner offer, the

offer to the speaker of the house. they will also include entirely paid for measures that demonstrate our need to invest in our economy so it grows and creates jobs because if there's one thing i think economists of all stripes would agree on, it is that we cannot reduce our deficit effectively if our economy is not growing. we need to make sure we take a balanced approach that allows us to continue to invest so our middle class is expanding, and our economy is creating jobs. >> there are many things we don't know about the budget, one of the things we don't know is how the administration intends to protect those it describes as most vulnerable in the changed c.p.i. the president is now embracing. is it your message to those who will soon be protesting at the white house that they will be pleasantly surprised when they see the contours of the specifics? >> i won't speak for them. i think in some of the reporting on this already

you've seen -- note -- you've seen noted experts in the field that said should a proposal to make this technical adjustment to how we calculate cost of living increases across the board in government programs, not just social insurance programs, be made, with -- paired with a proposal to protect vulnerable groups of citizens, that that would be a positive thing and that is what the president's budget will do. >> we'll see specific details on how that will be done tomorrow. >> yes. >> i want to ask about your reaction if the administration has any, to comments from the chinese foreign minister about north korea and if they reflect conversations which i gather have been rather consistent and persistent between this 1kwr5d mrgs and chinese officials? >> we welcome the comments by the new chinese president and the chinese leadership that reflect, i think, china's

concern about north korean actions and rhetoric. we have absolutely been consulting with the chinese about the need to use their influence on the north koreans to help bring about a reduction in this behavior and rhetoric from the north koreans. we have in discussions with moscow with the russian leadership about this. we have been very open about the fact that we are having these conversations and our call on the chinese to use their unique influence with north korea on this matter. it is in the interest of regional stability, in the interest of every nation in the reregion as well as the world, that the situation there stabilized and that north korea begin to take seriously its international only fwations. >> what's your take on this warning, if you will, to

countries to evacuate their embassies, what's the purpose of that? >> we have seen a series of statements from the north korean regime that are bellicose in nature and designed to ratchet up tension in the region. this is in keeping with a pattern of behavior that is familiar to those who have worked on the north korean issue over the past many years. veterans from the george w. bush administration and clinton administration can certainly fill you in on the hithsry of this kind of behavior we're seeing from the north koreans. what we have said is that it is unhelpful, it is concerning, it is provocative, we are taking necessary, prudent measures to we are at we are as

able to defend the homeland and our allies. we are working with our allies in seoul and tokyo on this matter and consulting with the chinese and russians to urge them to use their influence to prevail upon the north koreans. >> what's your understanding of the purpose of these threats? do you see them as intended to convince america's allies that it should tissue that this country should dial back the pressure? >> i wouldn't venture into analyzing the motivations of the north koreans. >> if any of our allies have said, hey, tone it down a little bit? >> i think you've seen from our international partners and our allies in the region a great consistency in our approach to this, both in the actions we have taken and in our response

to it from this podium and elsewhere. we are concerned about it but we also have made clear that this is not an unusual pat herb of behavior when it comes to the north koreansle >> on gun violence, fairly mainstream conservative groups are supporting the idea of filibustering, even expanded background checks. does that concern you? >> it would be appalling if commonsense legislation supported by 97 -- 90% of the mesh people -- of the american people, by 80% of republicans, 80% of gun owners, were to be filibustered. have the courage of your convictions, allow a vet and vote no. if you want to vote no, vote no. how you can tell the families of newtown victims, some of whom are here today, trying to urge members of the senate to

pass or at least vote on these commonsense measures that the memory ofer that children doesn't deserve at least that, i can't even imagine that conversation. we fully expect and hope that individual senators will see the rightness in allowing votes on these measures. even if they believe they need to society no for whatever reason. the vims of newtown and of aurora, of oak creek and tucson, of virginia tech an the countless other victims of other shootings, deserve that. >> jay, politically has it become a case of where the president is trying to just get a vote, there has been so much focus on this up or down vote on this legislation is that now the focus, just getting a vote? >> the focus is on turning these commonsense proposals into commonsense laws.

the first hurdle is to ensure that they get voted on. all of these legislative niche ties have, based on the data, majority support in the country. some of them like universal background checks have overwhelming support as the president said last night, how many issues do you know where the breakdown is 90-10? 90% on one side and 10% on the other? wouldn't it be shock, how would you explain to your constituents and for those in leadership, to the entire country, why you voted -- why you took action to block a vote a simple majority vote on a piece of legislation that more than 90% of the american people support, that democrats, republicans, and independents support, that americans from all over the country both in cities and rural areas support? that gun owners support in

substantial majority. . and then we'll see what happens. the president strongly supports every element of this legislation. he believes that the majority of the american people do, they are commonsense issues and protect second amendment rights and that they will as a package, reduce the scurge of gun violence in america. you know, we have to get to a vote. >> politically it seems the assault weapons ban limiting high-capacity mag deans doesn't have political viability. has it changed getting a vote on those or is he going to direct his focus or getting background checks? >> we are focused on every

element of this, every element f this package enjoys majority support. generally speaking, something is politically viable if a majority supports it. >> will the majority of the senate support it? >> we'll see, but we won't find out if we don't get a vote. and that's why the first hurdle here is to make it clear to members of the senate that it is their obligation, if they -- will whether or not they stood up at the state of the union and applauded and said that gabby giffords and the victims of newtown, awe rowa and virginia tech deserved the vote. they need to fulfill their responsibility and explain why they are voting no if they are voting no, as the president said and we'll see where the votes -- how the votes come out.

we can't test the preliminary about whether or not there is majority support if some senators decide to prevent a both. >> on north korea, the commander of the pacific command said pursuit of the nuclear weapons is a direct threat to the united states and its allies in the region and does the president share that concern and does it suggest that these latest are more than just bluster? >> north korean policy is based upon the premise on the proposition that north korea's development of nuclear weapons is a threat, is a problem. north korea's violation of its international obligations when it comes to developing missile capacity is a threat and that is why we work so closely with our partners to isolate and pressure north korea and to bring about a change in behavior. so there is no inconsistency with that. the latest developments in north korea are a matter of concern

and we have taken the steps we have taken. but it is important also to remember the history here and the patterns that we have seen in behavior and rhetoric from the north koreans. so both are true. >> some suggest that the patterns are different, the leader is younger and more predictable and there has been a consistency to provocation that you haven't seen in the past. >> what you have seen from the north koreans has occurred in the past testing weapons or missiles or shutting down the joint facility. these are actions that have been taken in the past. clearly there is a new leader but the regime is pretty much what it was. scott and then jackie. rsh tomorrow, could you speak a little bit about the first lady's appearance in chicago on the gun issue. i don't recall her getting involved in that political issue of the day and the white house

putting her out front right now. >> i urge you to listen to what he first lady has to say and the first lady obviously is a native of chicago and born and raised in chicago and has been discussed, a very high profile shooting in chicago. and the girl's parents were in attendance at the state of the union address and i think that is something that the first lady has spoken to -- spoken about and will likely speak about. the legislative effort, the working with congress, the political effort, if you will, is being undertaken and led by the president. >> how unusual -- and you have been in washington for a long time, i don't recall the president and perhaps secretary clinton and her husband's

administration getting directly involved in a major issue? >> it's important to wait and hear what the first lady will say and also understand that as i just said, the negotiations with congress, the legislative effort that's under way, the attempt to convince senators directly that they should not filibuster these bills is being led by and undertaken by the resident and his team. >> some have said he is exploiting the newtown tragedy and how the family members came to be on air force one and brought back to town with him and what transpired between him and them on the airplane while they were in the air. >> first of all, the families

that you are talking about are here in washington. expressing their views about the need to pass commonsense legislation to reduce gun iolence and i think nobody can speak better for them than they can for themselves. when we looked at having an event in connecticut and that being a state that recently passed bipartisan legislation to reduce gun violence at the state level, it was always in our intention to meet with newtown families. the president has met with them in the past and some of those families were scheduled to come to washington for this effort they are undertaking today and when that -- our intention to travel and their intention to visit washington came about that we offered to give them a ride

on air force one. >> was it the president's idea? >> i'm not quite sure whose idea. the president was very supportive of it. >> and on the subject of the budget, will the president be meeting today or in the near future with some of these on social ives security or how exactly how are you handling the protests? >> we meet with allies all the time both in congress and representatives of outside groups and that will continue. i don't have a meeting with the president to announce or preview, but that's a dialogue that continues regularly and we are discussing with democrats on capitol hill what's in the budget, why it is shaped in the fashion that it is.

why it represents the president's top priority, which is economic growth and job creation. simple t embodies the fact that you can grow the economy, create jobs, invest in and protect the middle class, protect our seniors and still reduce the deficit responsibly. it is not one or the other, an either/or proposition. if you take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. you do not need to do what the house republican budget does, which is -- institute deep, deep cuts and investments that will help our economy grow in the future and building our roads and bridges and airports and schools, investing in innovation and job training and other

aspects of our economy that help the american people take the job that will be available in this 21st century economy. nstead they cut these programs dramatically. they block grant medicaid leaving families who have kids with disabilities in the lurch. they voacherize medicare and shift costs. the president is interested in reducing the costs of health care because it drives our debt and deficit challenges. that is one of the aspects of the affordable care act that is often underreported that it addresses the costs, long-term, of health care. and the president is interested in that and has taken action on that and will continue to take action on that. he is not interested in the proposition that we should just dump costs on to our seniors who

can't afford it, which is what the house republican budget does. and this is the irony of this thing. this is an alternate universe that house republicans are living in as if we hadn't had this debate and if the american people hadn't made clear, as if the american people haven't made clear their absolute preference for balance in deficit reduction and focus on jobs and the economy and not on doing great harm to our social welfare program that protect seniors and giving huge tax cuts to the most fortunate in america. we had this debate. it would be a little more interesting i guess if we -- if it weren't a case of deja vu, because we already now what's in that proposition. we know how the american people feel about. >> i think he is including the

cost of living formula in his budget, not because he favors it doing so -- can you say why he didn't include an increase in raising the taxable wage base for social security, which is a popular idea that would raise revenue for social security as well as reducing benefits. >> there are other things that we talked about that were in the boehner offer. secondly, there are a host of proposals that are out that the president doesn't support that unnecessarily burdens seniors. on others, he's obviously open to discussion. he's made that clear. he is open to negotiation with republicans about proposals that deal with costs, but do not shift cogses and burdens to seniors -- costs and burdens to

seniors who can't afford it. overall, this is a document, that budget that demonstrates that if we do all of this if we do allcan -- of it together for those watching on tv -- that was a little side show -- but if we move forward, if we move it all together and make the necessary investments, if we make sure that the middle class is growing and that there are ladders of opportunity for those who aspire to the middle class, if we reform our tax code that asks the well connect todd give up special provisions in the tax code that benefit them disproportionately, then we can also make sensible reforms in our entitlements and taken as a package, reduce our deficit enough so that we exceed the $4

trillion mark over 10 years that economists say will put our debt situation on a stable path and that is key to longer term economic greth, which is the objective. verything ills is a means to chieving that objective. -- a term to describe the opponents of the gun legislation. there isn't any technique to break the filibuster and then move to vote that 90% of the americans are supporting? you are saying if they begin a filibuster, it will be blocked? >> i'm saying that senators who decide that it is appropriate to

use the filibuster or other procedural methods to prevent a simple vote on these measures are doing a disservice to 90% of the american people who support, in the case of background checks, universal background checks. they are doing disservice to the victims of gun violence across the country who deserve at least a vote on these commonsense measures. the president said last night, if you support the second amendment rights of the american people as he does, you can support commonsense measures that do not infringe upon those second amendment rights but make the job of law enforcement easier and that close gaping loopholes in our background check system that allow for those who should not by law obtain weapons from obtaining them. >> there is no other way to get

a vote once they begin the filibuster? >> i'm saying that this issue has and continues to be challenging enough that if senators don't have the guts to go on the record to vote how they feel on this issue, background checks or the other issues, that would be a shame and that would be a disservice to their constituents and to the 90% of the american people who want this passed. confused, the sequestration in this political year, the president's budget is talking about the next fiscal year that begins in october. when you talk about replacing the sequester, are we talking about two separate years? >> $1.2 trillion is over 10 years. this budget would replace the overall -- >> impacting the sequester but the president talking about the next fiscal year -- >> if the president submits a

budget wednesday and congress were to pass it right away, we would probably deal with the sequester right away. we are talking about a budget for the next. our interest has been consistently in eliminating the sequester today as well as for the next 10 years. >> negotiating something that would be retroactively -- >> i think it's smart but i would have to get the answer for. >> cheryl, april and then you. >> are the canadian official is in washington this week to negotiate with keystone. is she meeting with anyone at the white house? >> i don't know. the state department is probably the fruitful place to have discussions about what the state department is running on that? >> two questions on the budget. one, you talked about

middle-income americans. what about low-income americans? they are seeing cuts to programs and things of that nature. what happens with low-income americans with this budget? >> there will be investments in our budget that demonstrates the president's commitment to expanding the middle class, by providing what he calls ladders of opportunity to those who are not in the middle class but aspire to be there. and again, i will ask you to look at the details tomorrow, but this has been a theme that is consistent throughout this president's time in office which is investing in our people and in our economy so that it grows and creates jobs and that the benefits of growth are not enjoyed by only the wealthiest but our middle class expands and those who aspire to it who are struggling can enter the middle

class and go beyond that. so that will be an element of our budget. i think that's a great question because it goes to the point where the president's proirt is -- the north star is how do we help the middle class, expand the middle class. we have to do it through necessary investments and through economic growth and job creation. that's the purpose, he sees of budgeting and as part of that process for the strongest economy possible, we can reduce our deficit, as we have already, in a way that does not prevent further economic growth or restrict it and that allows for greater job creation. we can meet that $4 trillion target over 10 years without doing harm to our economy or our middle-class families or our seniors. that's the purpose of his president. >> in this white house, is there fear that the g.o.p. is for less government, less spending,

sequestration is falling into their lap and what they really want? >> i think there are a variety of ways to answer that. i have said it in the past it is ironic that those who decried the sequestration last year was a tea party victory. it didn't achieve the stated goals of conservatives to want to see long-term reductions in entitlement spending, who don't generally support across-the-board damaging cuts to our defense spending. on the -- like the idea of shrinking the government. it is interesting to note, i was looking at a table that compared this, in the recoveries, from the great recession that was in full bloom when the president took office and milder recession in 2001 when president bush was in office, a huge portion of the job creation in what was otherwise an anemic recovery,

was in government jobs. as you know, we had 6.5 million private sector jobs recovered during the recovery, but we have lost substantial state and local government jobs. that was -- that was not the case under president bush nor was it the case under president clinton or president reagan for that matter. this is a unique recovery that made more difficult in the jobs area by the layoff of teachers and police officers as well as other state and local government workers, a problem that the president has attempted to address in the past through the american jobs act but republicans have rejected because they celebrated back when it happened in the past. >> is there a feel around this the house that you gave republicans exactly what they wanted? >> if the republicans are saying exactly what they wanted, severe across-the-board reductions in

our defense spending, the throwing off of people on head start and the cuts that have resulted in furloughs and layoffs in other parts of the government, i think would be interesting to hear them say so. >> real quick on the furloughs, about 70,000 employees or at least 70,000 federal employees got letters last month indicating that the agency is intending to furlough them and have any actually been furloughed? >> i would have to direct you to the agencies. you may be able to contact the o.m.b. and they could direct you to the agencies. it's an agency by agency -- they each have their own budget. the notice go out and then the action is taken. [inaudible question] >> i have no updates on that at

this time. >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear that. >> president obama, has he been critical on the unions? he was very tough in the united states. >> we are talking about a different country and a different leader and a different time. i have noticed with some irony -- well, i won't even go there. [laughter] >> the president put out a statement about -- mourning the loss of a great british leader who was much admired by many americans. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute] >> like to think it's an important book in the sense that it tells you how the court

works. there is so few good books out there that explains the process, how do they decide these cases, what are they saying to one another. we see these cases that have split the court 5-4. what do they think? do the personal feelings get into it. it's a book not only capital punishment but how the court operates. >> when you dig into the notes in the library of congress, the memoranda, the notes between and forth.tices back i'm not a lawyer. i plead not guilty or whatever you guys do, i was fascinated by the human side of it. there are many cases, justices - justices have reservations about capital punishment. >> the cases that have defined the supreme court, sunday night t 9:00 on "after words" on

c-span2. >> among the hearings we covered today on the c-span networks, the senate armed services committee looking at the funding of the command in the pacific. senator mccain asked about tensions with north korea and the impact of budget cuts. >> the question is not we will have the most powerful military in the world, but will you be able to carry out the assigned missions that the pacific command has now in a sufficient manner to ensure our national security if sequestration continues on the path that it's n?

>> i hate to give you -- >> you know what the numbers are , admiral. you know what the numbers are and you know those numbers are going to have to be put into effect. and my question again is, will you be able to ensure the american people that you will carry out your assigned security requirements to defend this nation if sequestration continues on the path that it's on? >> i would have to give you the answer, it depends on how the resources are prioritized. >> the answer is sequestration is ok as long as we prioritize in the proper fashion, is that the answer you are giving this committee? >> i have been consistent in saying the sequestration would have a catastrophic effect on our ability to do the global operations we are doing today. to tell you that that sequestration is something that

i would be supportive of in journal, i would say no, i have not said that. but now the sequestration appears to be heading in that direction at least in the near term and there will be decisions that the department of defense will be forced to make. i believe secretary hagel and secretary carter are moving in that direction to what strategic choices have to be made and choices that we aren't going to be able to provide the force levels we have today, the answer to your question is, i can't do it. the answer is they are going to reprioritize it to the pacific, i will have to see, sir. >> thank you. i was thinking this morning, i don't know of a time of greater tension since the end of the korean war that exists today between north korea, south korea and us, would you agree with that? >> i would agree that in my

recollection, i don't know a greater time. >> do you believe that we have the ability to intercept a missile if the north koreans launch a missile as is widely reported they will do in coming days? >> i believe we have the credible ability to defend the homeland, to defend hawaii, defend guam, to defend our forward deployed forces and our allies. >> do we have the capability to intercept a missile if the north koreans launch within the next several days? >> we do. would you recommend such action? >> if a missile was in defense of the homeland, i would certainly recommend that action. it was in defense our allies, i would recommend it. >> would you recommend that we

intercept a missile if it is launched by north korea no matter where the intended target is? >> i would not recommend that. >> until you were sure what the target is. >> well, i think -- as you know, if you look at the architect turs that we have, we will be able to sense and understand pretty quickly where any launch anywhere in the world, but in this case, from this particular site, where it would be going and what we need to do about it. i'm confident we would be able to make that decision for defense of our allies and our homeland. >> in the event of a missile launch you would wait until you could determine where the missile was aimed? >> well, we should hopefully -- if we have any predetermined idea, we will have a good sense of where it's aimed.

if we don't, it won't take long for us where it's going and where it's going to land. >> that was a portion of a hearing that was held earlier today. the u.s. house gaveling now. e: will report the title. close up report to accompany house resolution 140, providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 67 to authorize all bureau of reclamation conduit facilities under federal reclamation law and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pevered to the -- referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken into the following order. motions to suspend the rules on h.r. 254, motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 1033, and approval of the journal.

in each case by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. the re-maining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 254 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: urine calendar number 13, h.r. 254, a bill to authorize the secretary of the interior to facilitate the development of hydroelectric power on the diamond fork sthosme central utah project. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 400, the nays are four. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. he house will be in order.

the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: madam speaker, i send to the desk -- madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from virginia. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the house and further ask unanimous consent that it be read in full. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 141, resolved, that the house of representatives has learned with profound sorrow of the death of barreness margaret thatcher, former prime minister of the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland

and recipient of the presidential medal of free do resolved, that the house of representatives tenders its deepest sympathies to the members of the family of the late barreness margaret thatcher and her countrymen. resolved, that the house of representatives honors the legacy of barreness margaret thatcher for her lifelong commitment to advancing freedom and democracy and for her friend thip to the united states. resolved that the secretary of the state be requested to communicate these expressions of sentiment to the family of the deceased and to the parliament of the united kingdom of great britain and orthern ireland. the speaker pro tempore: members please take your conversations off the floor. the house is still not in order. the clerk will read. the clerk: resolved, that when

the house adjourns today it do sos a mechanic of of respect to the memthroif late baroness margaret thatcher. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. wittman, to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1033, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 17, h.r. 1033, a bill to authorize the acquisition and protection of nationally significant battlefields and associated sites of the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 under the american battlefield protection program. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? members will record their votes

by electronic device. this is a phi-minute vote. fund -- this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 283, the nays are 122, zero recorded as present. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, unfinished business is the question on agreeing of the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 293, the nays

are 103 with one member answering present. the journal stand as i proved -- stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 294, the nays are 104 with one member answering present. the journal stand as i proved -- stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to remove representative joe wilson from h.r. 1202. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests.

the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. castor of florida for today and the balance of the week, mr. culberson of texas for today and mr. hastings of florida for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, g.e. transportation, a division of general electric, is a manufacturing facility in erie county. the plant is one of the largest employers in the county with over 5,500 employees. earlier today g.e. announced its

intent to restructure the operation which could result in over 950 employees being impacted. a tremendous loss for erie county, especially for the individuals and families directly impacted. the official citing is lower production volume within locomotive and mining businesses due to decreased coal demand, end of quote, as a justification for the decision. g.e. supplies locomotives to the freight and rail industry which has relied more on coal than any other commodity. the announcement is another reminder of how the administration's regulatory agenda is impacting more and more businesses connected to the coal supply chain. equally so it raises questions as to what the commonwealth of pennsylvania can do to become more competitive and improve business retention. while thanks major upset and i'm extremely disappointed, moving forward we must pull together as a community and support those who have been affected by this decision and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. today is equal payday and june will mark the 50th anniversary of president kennedy signing the equal pay act. despite these markers of recognition and achievement, discrimination through the form of a staggering wage gap still exists. in san diego, a woman is paid 84 cents for every $1 a man is paid for the same job with the same experience. that means together san diego women earn nearly $3.2 billion less each year than their male counterparts for performing the same work. for a woman working in san diego, the wage gap represents 60 weeks of food, four weeks of mortgage and utilities payments, 2,035 onths of rent or gallons of gasoline. to me this is remarkable this is still an issue. i co-sponsored congresswoman rosa delauro's fairness act. mr. peters: it strengthens the

equal pay act by providing for greater enforcement of and remedies to gender discrimination in the payment of wages. for my daughter and her daughters, for the women of san diego and for women across the nation, i encourage every member this in this body to stand up for women and help pass the paycheck fairness act. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, today, the ninth of april, is called equal payday because it marks the number of days women had to work to equal the salary made by their male counterparts in 2012. it is a sad reality that women continue to be paid less than men for doing the same work. as families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends meet, equal pay is not simply a family issue, it is a

issue that impacts our national economy. on average women receive only 77 cent it's for every $1 paid to male workers. this disparity results in the loss of nearly $11,000 a year or the equivalent of grocery, five months of child care and over six months of rent and utilities. ms. roybal-allard: in my home state of california, the wage gap is even more pronounced for black and latino women who receive just 64 and 42 cents respectively for every $1 paid to white men. mr. speaker, we have the power to correct this injustice that hurts families and the economy. i urge the republican leadership to allow a vote on the paycheck fairness act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for ne minute.

ms. schakowsky: mr. speaker, america's daughters deserve better. today in the united states, women make only 77 cents for every $1 their male peers earn. in my home state of illinois, women earn only $12,000 a year less than their male counterparts. during my service in the army, compared to my male counterparts, i received equal pay for equal work. and this policy of fairness has helped make our military the strongest, fiercest in the world. ms. duckworth: pay discrimination doesn't just hurt women, it hurtses working families in -- hurts working families. i know that my neighbors in the eighth congressional district believe that their daughters deserve better than this. pay equality for women is not only the right thing to do, but it will make our economy stronger, it will make our families stronger, it will make america stronger. so on equal payday, let us recommit ourselves to doing everything in our power to end pay inequality for our country. congress needs to act now and pass a paycheck fairness act so

that women have the opportunity to stand up to this discrimination. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, i rise on behalf of the safe climate caucus, to challenge the republicans on the energy and commerce committee, to a debate on climate change. in the last congress, the republicans in our committee voted that climate change is a hoax. they voted 53 times to block actions on climate change. they voted to defund research to block action by e.p.a. to control pollution, to prevent energy efficiency measures from going into effect and stop the administration from encouraging developing countries to do their part. this year they've gone silent.

they refuse to hear the views of our premier scientific institutions, but they won't justify their inaction. they won't hold hearings, they won't listen to experts. that's why the members of the safe climate caucus are challenging them to come to the floor and debate us. we are elected to solve problems, not to ignore them. let's have the debate about how to solve the climate issue. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. today, use it, april 9, is equal payday. it symbolizes how far in 2013

women must work in order to make what their male counterparts earned in 2012. this means that it took more than three months in 2013 for women's wages to finally catch up for what men were paid in 2012. for working mothers who have to to put food on the table and the retired women whose income is tied to their former salary, the wage gap means real dollars. listen to this, in south florida, the wage gap was eliminated, a working woman would have enough money for 51 more weeks of food, three months more of mortgage and utility payments, five more months of rent or 1,600 additional gallons of gas. equal pay is about fairness and it's about family. hank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maryland seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in recognition of equal payday. it's the day in 2013 when women finally earn when their male peers did in 2012. put another way, women work 15 1/2 months to make what a man makes in 12. 50 years ago president kennedy signed the equal pay acts into law and yet half a century later, women still earn only 77 cents to the dollar compared to their male peers. these gaps are even wider for women of color. african-american women earn just 64 cents and latinos earn 55 cents for every dollar. sadly not a single state or major metropolitan area has eliminated the wage gap. in maryland the national partnership for women and families found that women who are employed full time lose $7.8 billion a year due to this wage

gap. we restored the right of women to challenge unfair pay in court. but here the gap persists. and so we must pass the paycheck fairness act to strengthen the equal pay act and to help gender-based discrimination end once and for all. we all benefit when women earn equal pay. closing the wage gap must be an integral part of strengthening america's families and our economy. thank you and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> for the many in the world to live free, we must rely upon the sacrifices of the few in our armed services. on march 21 we lost sergeant first class james grich am of california while serving operation enduring freedom in afghanistan. sergeant grisham graduated from mountain eden high school in 1999 and earned a degree from the art institute of san

francisco before enlisting in the army. he was assigned to the fourth battalion, first special forces group. as a special forces soldier, sergeant grisham was physically and mentally strong and honored with many medals including the bronze star and the naval medal. his work as a soldier, brightly illustrates the heroism of the service members who serve our country and dedicated to protecting our freedom. i'm forever grateful for sergeant grisham's sacrifice and service. even after sergeant grisham passed away, his service to others continues. years ago sergeant grisham chose to be an organ donor and his organs were used recently. mr. swalwell: we should shal not forget the sacrifice and honor of sergeant grisham. for his country he gave his life. for the rest of the world he gives his body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new hampshire eek recognition?

without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. today as we mark equal payday, we face the alarming reality that women still earn just 77 cents for every $1 earned by a man. women in new hampshire can work full time, earn over $12,000 less every year than men. that wage gap has real consequences. smaller paychecks make it harder for families to purchase health care, to send their kids to college and to save for retirement. that doesn't just hurt women, that hurts our entire community. and our economy. to prevent wage discrimination and to protect its victims, congress must pass the paycheck

fairness act. ms. kuster: we must recommit ourselves to being a nation that rewards the hard work of all americans, regardless of gender. mothers, sisters and daughters across new hampshire deserve nothing less. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. >> women in delaware make 08 cents for every $1 men make and for women of color the pay gap is even worse. if this pay gap were eliminated,

women in my state and across the country would have more money to spend on rent >> ap system that pays more is not fair and as members of congress we should do something to fix it. i'm a co-sponsor of the pay check fairness act. this would make it harder for employers to engage in discrimination against women. i urge my colleagues to pass the pay check fairness act that women who do the same jobs for the same hours get the same pay check as their male counterparts. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> today is equal pay day, a day to remind all americans and all my colleagues here in congress

that discrimination and pay check inquality still exists in the general workplace. nationally, women earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. that income disparity must end now. while women in my home state of california are paid 85 cents for every dollar paid to men, we must do more. to live in a country where women do not earn equal pay for equal work is sad and embarrassing. what does equality look like, mr. speaker? equality looks like the civil rights act of 1964. the voting rights act of 1965 and equality needs to look like the pay check fairness act, which has yet to be passed. i urge the speaker to bring this much-needed bill to the house floor as soon as possible. to my constituents, please join me on facebook tomorrow for a town hall meeting, where i will be answering your questions

about equality and what steps we should be taking to achieve equality for all. facebook.com to join the conversation and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. lee: thank you, mr. speaker, we rise in support of equal pay day. equal pay day symbolizes when three months into the year, women's wages catch up to what men were paid in the previous year. it is unconscionable that women are discriminated against in the work force in terms of the pay and treatment they receive. in 2011, women working full-time made only 77 cents to every dollar made by men over the course of the year. the landscape is even worse for women of color.

n 2011, african-american women earned 77 cents on the dollar and latinos is 42 cents in my home state of california. n average, the wage gap caused $11,000 annually and at this rate, the wage gap will not close until 2057. can you imagine that? 2057. we must support congresswoman delauro's pay check fairness act. this addresses the serious economic disparities which women still face, women and their families cannot afford to continue paying the cost of our inaction in the face of injustice. i hope this bill will come to the floor right away. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. >> today on april 9, we recognize equal pay day, symbol ising the three months into this year that women had to work in order for their wages to catch up to what their male colleagues earned last year. nearly 50 years ago, president kennedy signed the equal pay act to protect workers from gender-based discrimination. despite the hard work to make equality a reality, women earn 77 cents. for women of color, the wage gap is even larger. clearly, as a nation, we have more work to do. that's why i'm a proud co-sponsor of the pay check fairness act which would would ce the act which protect workers. democrats have passed this legislation in the house of representatives only to have it blocked by senate republicans.

equal pay is not a partisan issue and it's not only a women's issue. this is about america's founding principles of justice for all. mr. speaker, i urge you to bring this important legislation before the house for a full vote. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. jarkt for one minute. >> today i rise to celebrate equal pay day as we mark the 50th anniversary of the equal pay act. in the last few years, women have gone into space and off to war and led fortune 500 companies and served on the supreme court and been elected speaker of this body, this house and ran for president. women only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. in sacramento, women lose $2.2

billion each year because of this pay gap. that's unacceptable and as a father, it's personal. i want my daughter to grow up in a country where her gender is not a barrier to her success. and the wage gap just does president hurt women, it hurts families. businesses and communities. women are now nearly half of our work force and oftentimes it's up to women to put food on their table and provide for their families. i'm a proud co-sponsor of the pay check fairness act, one of the first bills i chose to co-sponsor. time to finish what president contendy started 50 years ago and what women have been working to achieve and make equal pay a reality for millions of americans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mrs. beatty: i rise today in recognizing tuesday april 9, as equal pay day for women. the equal pay act signed into law by president kennedy in 1963 amended the fair labor standards act of 1938 to prohibit sex-based wage discrimination between men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility. in 1963, women were earning on an average of 59 cents on the dollar compared to men. i rise because today on average, women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. in 2013, a study by the united states census bureau in columbus, ohio, women are paid

81 cents for every dollar paid to men. this amounts to a yearly gap of $9,261 between men and women who work full-time. equal work, it's simple, deserves equal pay. i'm proud that the first piece of legislation that president obama signed into law during his first term was the lilly ledbetter act. i rise for all the lilly ledbetters in hope that the wage workers in this country will be equal regardless of sex or gender and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker very much and i ask unanimous consent that members

may have five days to submit statements into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. ms. jackson lee: thank you so very much for the opportunity to discuss with my colleagues a pending action in the united states congress and a plea for civility and fairness. as i do that, let me acknowledge equal pay day and support as i have done over the years, congresswoman delauro's continued acknowledgement and recognizing of the need to finally put an end in disparities to pay for women. that's what america is all about. and i'm delighted to join my colleagues who have already spoken to the idea of ensuring that we have equal pay. i hope we can pass that legislation. i also, however, want to raise an issue and offer my concern and expression of, if you will,

comfort to the students at lone star college. part of lone star is in my congressional district and i share that with one of my colleagues in texas and i say to the parents and colleagues, all of us support the idea -- i have ildren who finished college, support our children, all of our children going to the safe place and being safe and having the ability to be educated in a safe place. so i express great sympathy. we are not sure of the status of whether or not there's been any loss of life. we know there are persons who are critical, and we are wishing and hoping for their safety. we do want to determine the facts and our law enforcement were there expeditiously and let me acknowledge the lone star

police, the police in the surrounding area and harris county sheriff's department and the first responders who went there as well. today, i want to acknowledge that we have a pending crisis, and that is that we have the need to pass sensible gun legislation. and why do i call it a crisis? because we are moving toward a day that has been designated by the leadership in the senate that we will be able to vote on sensible gun legislation. remember, i said sensible gun legislation. today, i rise on the floor of the house, because i think it is crucial, i think it is imperative that we found that common path to save lives. that's what it really is about. it is a pathway to be able to save lives. and so i'm delighted to have one of my distinguished colleagues on the floor that i will yield to at this moment and that is the former speaker of the ohio

house, and that is congresswoman, the distinguished congresswoman from columbus, ohio, who will share her thoughts about the pending vote hat is coming up on this thursday, and as she comes, let me cite for you that we have heard the commitments and sermons and passion after each tragedy. i remember columbine. i was appointed to a school safety select committee to talk about school safety at that time. obviously, a lot of us were here for aurora. virginia tech, i was here for that as well. and then, of course, newtown. and then cases in between. many of us are here for the tragedies that we see when we go home. this past weekend in sugarland, texas, an individual who was mentally challenged was shot

dead in his house when he came out of his bedroom pointing a gun at law enforcement officers. many of you know the tragedy in texas that we are still mourning, two prosecutors and a prosecutor's wife, a district attorney in texas was shot dead, individuals were shot dead by someone who should not have had a gun. tragically, the individual should not have been released but they got a gun what might have been a straw purchase. someone else purchasing the gun for them. so i believe we are no longer at the point where we can have sermons and we can mourn and yet not do something. let me thank -- i think applaud is not the appropriate terminology, those parents who flew on air force one from newtown, connecticut. tears came to my eyes when i saw them deplane out of air force

one, knowing they are still hurting. i heard a quote that said, for some of us, it's months. for those parents, it's one day at a time to imagine little ones, five and six years old whose bodies were riddled and they are here in the hallways of congress to be able to asks can we do the right thing that is the right thing for the american people. and i want to answer a question that i raised, can we stop the filibuster and resolve the fact that sensible gun legislation does not violate the second amendment and in fact, we protect the second amendment, no one has challenged the second amendment and no one has challenged concealed permits for concealed weapons that are in many states, but we have said that the tragedy that occurred in arizona, where someone was using an automatic weapon and had multiple rounds and for those who say, if the good guys

had a gun and a good guy had a gun and was probably go to go shoot the wrong people if someone had not intervened, what we need to do for this place, is to in essence, what we need to do is to ensure that we find ommon ground and do sensible things. . . i'm open to reasonable discussion. but we've got to close the gun show loopholes, we've got to close people opening up their trunk on a highway and giving to someone who's going to wind up shooting in a robbery or going into an old man's house just like happened in my community last night and shooting an 83-year-old and taking his car. or the incidence where, as i indicated, this individual with mental health concerns, or the bloody killings of a mother's

daughter and her granddaughter by what i would say a crazed ex-husband who did not need to have a gun. and so isn't it reasonable to think that universal background checks would weed out those who did not need to have them? your not going to knock on door and take any guns from families, but we do hope that will you secure them. i hope that you will -- i'll be able to go get a vote on h.r. 65, a bill that was taken after an ordinance i passed in the city of houston as a member of city council because we have legislative authority and in fact legislation that's the law of the land in texas and that is to hold people responsible for not locking up their guns. i'd be happy to yield for a moment to the gentlelady from ohio, the distinguished gentlelady, just want to pause on that moment. let's think about storing guns. i want to thank her for her legislative prowess. we're so proud that she's already come here ready to go

because anybody who is the speaker of the ohio house, if you will, is already ready to go. she's already taking charge on women's issues, she's taking charge on economic issues and i'm very proud to yield to the gentlelady at this time. thank you very much. such time as she may consume. mrs. beatty: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you to my colleague, congresswoman sheila jackson lee. it is an honor for me to join you. and as i stand here today on this floor, thinking that we have the opportunity to pass legislation that makes sense on gun laws, to stand here on this floor and realize that the gun debate is heating up, and we are considering that we would filibuster and protect those who don't want us to make a decision does not make sense to me. we're asking for a sensible gun law. we're asking for laws that can help save lives.

whether it's in congresswoman jackson lee's district in texas, whether it's in newtown, connecticut, or my third congressional district in ohio. it's for us to take this opportunity to stand together and save lives. we stand on this floor and we salute so many good things, so many changes. so the question now for me is why? why can't we come together, the things we're asking for, to close the loopholes, the things we're asking for, to make sure that someone doesn't have an assault weapon in their home that can shoot 30 rounds of ammunition in 30 seconds. i support the second amendment but i don't think that our forefathers meant for us to do what we're doing today. i don't think that they envisioned that innocent children, babies, would be

fascinated, if you will, by someone who had one of these assault weapons. i think today, as members of congress on both sides of the aisle, that we understand that we are about saving lives. that we are here to protect the innocent. that we took an oath to serve. so as i reflect back on where i was when that incident happened in newtown, i was sitting with colleagues on both sides of the aisle at harvard university where we were talking about working together, where we were talking about how we could make this wonderful america better. so now as i reflect today, let's use those same things that we were being trained on to make this america better. let's make it better by voting

an up and down vote. let's make it better in the spirit of saving lives. so, i proudly join you as we asked all of our colleagues to come together and do what's right. sensible gun laws, background checks, closing the loopholes, that's what we're asking for. for me it's quite simple. the answer is let's vote. thank you and i yield back. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentlelady for bringing a sense of passion to this debate. so many of us could remember where we were and how incredulous it was when we heard the news that -- coming and first we thought, this is not real. we couldn't be hearing it accurately. maybe we were hearing the tragedy of six adults. that already was innocent teachers and principals. but we couldn't imagine that you were talking about a classroom, that someone would open the door

in a recovery mode and see the carnage that one had to be able to look, not to get any more graphic, so much so that as i understand it, that many could not view the situation. and so i thought it was imperative to come from houston today and before i got on the airplane i stopped at a community learning academy, from k through six, and i listened to babes talk about knowing sandy hook, raising their hands about wanting to stop gun violence and understanding that guns in the hands of teachers would not be the way to go. having little ones in the fifth and sixth grade explain how fearful they would be to have guns with teachers, not because it was an idea that our teachers are not ones that are loving, but we know what happens, the human nature accidents, guns being taken out of drawers or out of purses or pockets and

what could happen. yes, i believe we can have common agreement on increasing school resource officers, however school districts would like to use them. we have very fine police departments for many of the school districts that i represent and you know what these police told me in an earlier hearing in my district? not one of them, university chiefs of police or school district chiefs of police wanted to arm school personnel or teachers in the classroom to be able to protect our children. those were the chiefs of police, i didn't put words in their mouth, and they wanted it to be known that they are the responsible ones for security, not to be able to arm those who in essence would be responsible for shooting a gun, making a decision when to shoot, and then not making the decision right and causing havoc, causing themselves to be shot, causing someone else to be shot. in fact, at a press conference i had on the day that martin luther king was assassinated on april 4 in my district, because we have been having these gun

informational press conferences to raise the understanding, we've been working with a group by the name of moms demand action. thousands of moms across america , we were with them on thursday and then we were at the light house church on this past sunday , when the moms demand action went to the pulpit, honored and recognized pastor henderson to talk about moms demanding action, to prevent gun violence. but this little school that i went to, said to them that i would come and give their message here on the floor of the house. that i would tell the president that i was in this school where these children are so bright, private school that it was, alongside a public school, these children spoke well about their fear of gun violence, the gun violence that they see around them and that they want to be in a place where they are safe and guns they feel do not make them safe. so, i got motivated because i thank the senators for informing

me, a letter that i received march 22, 2013, from senator paul, senator cruz, senator mike lee, i ask unanimous consent to put this let floor the record. -- this letter into the record. i thank you very much. they have now grown to 13 senators. i know they have good hearts. but the language that i want to read specifically says, we will oppose the motion to receive any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions. you see, that's wrong in and of itself. because we're talking about sensible gun legislation. i don't want to restrict anything. i'd like to take that word out of the vocablary of sensible gun legislation. because i will not restrict you from getting a gun if you pass a background check. i will not restrict you from having guns in your home but i will hold you responsible for guns that are not locked up. i will not restrict you from hunting, i will not restrict you as a sports person, i will not

restrict you for a legitimate concealed weapons permit, but i will restrict that dastardly person who went to the door of a colorado corrections chief and shot him dead because he had a gun that he should not have. because we don't enforce, which we should, but add to the idea of preventing straw purchases for that individual, for getting a gun, because someone purchased a gun for him. mr. speaker, that can be blocked. and the idea of storage. my friends, i'm talking about gun locks. maybe it's somebody that has a gun lock manufacturing company in their district. just think what will happen if folks have to lock up their guns. at least the ones that are classics, the arland 15's or assault weapons that you already have, nobody's coming to get those. well, the guns that the young man had in newtown, if only they had been locked up.

for many people don't even speak of it. i think she deserves to be mentioned, his mother, who i know had to be a loving mother. i know she cared. she recognized the disturbed individual that he was. and maybe it might have gone another way, maybe there should have been some other response to his situation. but all you can say is that mother was trying. but look at her. dead in her bed. guns that were open to someone who was challenged. so, mr. speaker, i can't imagine why we would ignore some of the numbers that i'm getting ready to share with you. but before i do that, lets me just raise again -- let me just raise again, if i can highlight what simple legislation that we're asking for. require universal background checks to keep guns out of dangerous hands. let me be very clear. dangerous hands. ban military-style assault weapons.

military-style assault weapons. limit high-capacity magazines. that was a kind of magazine that was used tragically in arizona. the individual could keep shooting and shooting and the only way that he would stop is when he had to reload. just imagine 15 rounds, 20 rounds, no reloading. and the individual in newtown, 155 rounds in five minutes before he stopped. taking the lives of so many. let me share with you these statistics him that pact urban loss of life, rural loss of life , just the enormous tragedy. take the incident of a rogue cop in california that wound up with weapons of war until he was finally caught. how many people that he killed and how many more he could have

killed. he had assault-type weapons. if you speak to the law enforcement community, particularly right after newtown, people became gunned up to the extent that when i spoke to my law enforcement, they indicated to me that they couldn't even find any guns, that people had bought guns so, so much. let me share with you some of these numbers about gun violence. first of all, the number of persons killed by guns since newtown, 440 in the united states, i'm sure that number is down since the time these statistics were presented. 103 in texas. 21 in houston. 57 this month alone. 48,000 people killed annually in the united states. and if i might remind you, over one million persons, americans have been killed by guns since john f. kennedy and martin luther king jr. were assassinated. so let me remind you of that list. john f. kennedy, assassinated by